Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[MrMacSon]

We have a letter purporting to be written by X and describing some personal experience of X. If we know nothing of X and all we have is such a letter, then we have evidence for X.

Hoo boy! No!!

• "a letter purporting to be written by X" is not "evidence for X"

All you propose is a non-sequitur.

You clearly fail to understand evidence.
.

[MrMacSon]

It is simply standard practice to identify a terminus a quo (not a definitive "point of origin" as you misinterpret my point) from the contents of a document.

Terminus a quo means an earliest possible date for a document. Possible date. Terminus a quo does not mean the date or point of origin of a document. It means the earliest possible date. Even contents of a dubious theological document can be used to identify a terminus a quo.

That is basic 101 stuff for the dating of anything.

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Contents of a document are evidence for certain things about a document. Evidence needs to be interpreted. Evidence is not proof of any particular proposition. Evidence and proof are different concepts. Is that where the confusion lies?

FFS.

Bandy around wishy-washy terminology or concepts such as "Terminus a quo", and this is the sort of dead-end nonsense one gets.

Contents of a document are evidence for certain things about a document.

No; contents of a document are information about a document - the relevance or role of that information is in context of other information about the document & the information.

Information is not necessarily evidence.

Whether information is evidence is a determination; a deduction.

Whether evidence is used as proof is also a determination; a deduction.

[neilgodfrey]

We have a letter purporting to be written by X and describing some personal experience of X. If we know nothing of X and all we have is such a letter, then we have evidence for X.

Hoo boy! No!!

• "a letter purporting to be written by X" is not "evidence for X"

All you propose is a non-sequitur.

You clearly fail to understand evidence.
.

Or you clearly fail to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Evidence in a court of law (or anywhere) needs to be tested. It must be interpreted. A proposition is advanced and evidence for and against it needs to be evaluated.

It is just as dogmatic and invalid to reject evidence out of hand as it is to swallow its contents uncritically.

Both positions are dogmatism.

Somehow my previous post was lost. Let me try again.

It is simply standard practice to identify a terminus a quo (not a definitive "point of origin" as you misinterpret my point) from the contents of a document.

Terminus a quo means an earliest possible date for a document. Possible date. Terminus a quo does not mean the date or point of origin of a document. It means the earliest possible date. Even contents of a dubious theological document can be used to identify a terminus a quo.

That is basic 101 stuff for the dating of anything.

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Contents of a document are evidence for certain things about a document. Evidence needs to be interpreted. Evidence is not proof of any particular proposition. Evidence and proof are different concepts. Is that where the confusion lies?

So if we have a letter ostensibly by X and that letter testifies to certain things about X and if we know nothing at all about X apart from this letter then the only evidence we have for X is that letter.

Is it proof that X really existed? Some scholars insist it is because they feel obligated to exercise what they call a hermeneutic of charity.

A refugee arrives at our doorstep and claims to be so-and-so and he/she has just fled from persecution at some place or other. That is evidence. Does it mean the customs people must be obligated to accept that evidence at face value even though they know nothing else at all about that person testifying? Of course not. The evidence, the claim, must be tested.

It is just as naive, just as indefensible, to reject the evidence out of hand because we know nothing else about X.

Both positions are purely dogmatic.

There is nothing wrong -- in fact I thought it was the more scholarly approach -- to work with uncertainty, to hold knowledge tentatively, provisionally, to say "we don't know", when working with documents from ancient times.

I have no idea when Paul's letters were written or who wrote them. But I don't reject one hypothesis out of hand simply because we know nothing else about "Paul" any more than I take the face-value hypothesis for granted because it is the "charitable" thing to do.

Both positions are invalid.

[neilgodfrey]

Bandy around wishy-washy terminology or concepts such as "Terminus a quo", and this is the sort of dead-end nonsense one gets.

Terminus a quo is wishy-washy terminology? Have you ever read any scholarly works referring to documents at all?

[neilgodfrey]

No; contents of a document are information about a document - it's role is in context of other information about it.

Information is not necessarily evidence.

Whether information is evidence is a determination; a deduction.

Whether evidence is used as proof is also a determination; a deduction.

Ah, so here is the point of confusion.

"Information" becomes "evidence" when it (information) is related to a particular question, a hypothesis. Evidence is information that has a particular relevance or meaning for a question over whether a certain answer is true or false. Evidence is information that has a right to be heard when we determine the truth or otherwise of a particular answer to a question.

We may decide that the evidence (information applied to this context) is insufficient to allow us to confirm or refute the answer to our question.

In that case we have made an evaluation of the evidence and set it aside and left the question unanswered.

Or we may find new information (Y) and apply it to the same question -- thus turning that new information into new evidence (Y+) -- and conclude for various reasons that our earlier evidence (X+) is false, or biased, or irrelevant, or misinterpreted.

Evidence can be false or misinterpreted. But that needs to be argued. Not assumed.

[MrMacSon]

Contents of a document are evidence for certain things about a document.

Contents of theological texts are not necessarily evidence: especially given the likely redaction & likely embellishment of those contents, over several generations.

So if we have a letter ostensibly by X and that letter testifies to certain things about X and if we know nothing at all about X apart from this letter then the only evidence we have for X is that letter.

Is it proof that X really existed? Some scholars insist it is because they feel obligated to exercise what they call a hermeneutic of charity.

a "hermeneutic of charity", on its own, is a pretty wishy-washy concept to determine the veracity of an alleged-character in a letter being the writer of the letter.

It is just as naive, just as indefensible, to reject the evidence out of hand because we know nothing else about X.

Both positions are purely dogmatic.

That is a false dichotomy (another fallacy). It is realistic to be suitably sceptical & 'grey' and to convey that = eg. "the alleged-Paul"

There is nothing wrong -- in fact I thought it was the more scholarly approach -- to work with uncertainty, to hold knowledge tentatively, provisionally, to say "we don't know", when working with documents from ancient times.

Now you're talking sense.

[neilgodfrey]

Evidence can be false or misinterpreted. But that needs to be argued. Not assumed.

My position is not the dogmatic one. Yours is. It is dogmatic to reject out of hand X because one knows nothing else about X. It is not dogmatic to hold X in abeyance until it can be tested.

There is no false dichotomy in saying that rejection of X is just as dogmatic as swallowing X uncritically. Both are dogmatic reactions because they are rationalized by assumptions, not arguments.

[neilgodfrey]

There is nothing wrong -- in fact I thought it was the more scholarly approach -- to work with uncertainty, to hold knowledge tentatively, provisionally, to say "we don't know", when working with documents from ancient times.

Now you're talking sense.

So why do you reject the agnostic position and choose to "reject" evidence/information/content out of hand?

[MrMacSon]

"Information" becomes "evidence" when it (information) is related to a particular question, a hypothesis. Evidence is information that has a particular relevance or meaning for a question over whether a certain answer is true or false. Evidence is information that has a right to be heard when we determine the truth or otherwise of a particular answer to a question.

We may decide that the evidence (information applied to this context) is insufficient to allow us to confirm or refute the answer to our question.

It is not 'evidence' necessarily related to a particular question or hypothesis.

I would contest it is, initially, information contextual.

As I said, I proposed that information or text only becomes evidence when deduced to be that. in context.

Early christian texts are evidence of early Chrstianity but, un-examined, they are not evidence of the allegations in the texts,and are not evidence of the authors.

[MrMacSon]

Evidence can be false or misinterpreted. But that needs to be argued. Not assumed.

Something admitted-as-evidence can be 'false-evidence'.

But it is only information (either actual true-information, or false-information) until argued or deduced as suitable to be classified as [true] evidence.

My position is not the dogmatic one. Yours is. It is dogmatic to reject out of hand X because one knows nothing else about X. It is not dogmatic to hold X in abeyance until it can be tested.

You misrepresent my position.

I don't reject Paul out of hand. I hold 'Paul' in abeyance because 'Paul' is untested

There is no false dichotomy in saying that rejection of X is just as dogmatic as swallowing X uncritically.

another misrepresentation (strawman).

I agree each of those two poles is dogmatic. Rejection or swallowing is the false dichotomy. There is another intermediate option.

Anyone who mostly or wholly accepts Paul as a primary writer (or primary-authority) is doing the study of early-Christianity a disservice.